Comments on: Six Nations vs Tri-Nations: And the money goes to … http://www.sportsleader.co.za/tonymckeever/2010/04/02/six-nations-vs-tri-nations-and-the-money-goes-to/ Mon, 21 May 2012 14:47:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: tv freeload http://www.sportsleader.co.za/tonymckeever/2010/04/02/six-nations-vs-tri-nations-and-the-money-goes-to/#comment-29204 tv freeload Mon, 19 Mar 2012 04:04:50 +0000 http://www.sportsleader.co.za/tonymckeever/2010/04/02/six-nations-vs-tri-nations-and-the-money-goes-to/#comment-29204 <strong>tv freeload...</strong> [...]Sports Leader » Tony McKeever » Six Nations vs Tri-Nations: And the money goes to ...[...]... tv freeload…

[…]Sports Leader » Tony McKeever » Six Nations vs Tri-Nations: And the money goes to …[…]…

(Report abuse)

]]> By: Coen http://www.sportsleader.co.za/tonymckeever/2010/04/02/six-nations-vs-tri-nations-and-the-money-goes-to/#comment-8092 Coen Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:29:48 +0000 http://www.sportsleader.co.za/tonymckeever/2010/04/02/six-nations-vs-tri-nations-and-the-money-goes-to/#comment-8092 interesting article with useful data. However, i feel you cant just compare the northern & southern hemispheres as like for like. There are significant differences in geographic setup, travel infrastructure, international purchasing power of member countries, and broadcasting delivery. I am a South African rugby fan living and working in London for the last 5 years. During this time i've actively attended games of the Guinness Premiership, Heineken Cup & Six nations tournaments. I can contrast the northern hemiphere setup to the south as follows: 1) geographically Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England, France, Italy are a line of neighbour countries relatively close proximity to each otherm whilst SA, Aus, NZ are scattered apart. This means that there is no more than a 1-2 hour time difference amongst the 6 nations countries, whilst between SA & NZ that is 10 hours. This geographical seperation creates a dislocation amongst the member country fanbase making it much harder for all 3 x nations of the south to watch live games together. This smaller live audience in turn explains the smaller commercial bid from television networks. 2) Travel infrastructure accross Europe is world class and makes intercity car, bus, rail or flight journeys a doddle. Journey connections are fast and cheap if you earn in Europe. In the UK i paid only £100 for my Saracens season ticket in Guinness Premiership. Or to attend 6 Nations games i would pay GBP60 for the ticket, £20 for a bus ticket to Cardiff, Edinburgh etc, GBP70 for b&b accommodation. Into the continent a tad more for Eurostar rail or flights, but still very affordable. Time difference is negligble and journey times are no more than 2-4 hours. No tourist travel visas are required to travel within EU states. Easy peasy. I've never attempted to attend individual games in NZ or Aus, but i'd imagine that must be an almost insurmountable challenge to a SA based Springbok supporter. Global rugby union has filtered down from its origin amongst the selected elite towards a more broad man-in-the-street fanbase. The difference being that whilst man-in-the-street fanbase in Europe can easily support and attend international games, unfortunately the same is not possible for man-in-the-street fan in SA. 3) IMF 2009 GDP per capita data reveals IRE $39.4k, UK $35.1k, FR $33.7k, IT $29.3k. They are all on par in Western Europe with even the Italians being able to afford attending games in London. In the southern hemisphere we find AUS $37.3k, NZ $26.6k & SA $9.9k. Clearly the purchasing power of a SA based fan does not allow penetrating support towards the high cost of living in Aus & NZ. This ecnomic disparity creates yet another dislocation in the member country setup which restricts the mobility of the fanbase further. 4) In England the BBC broadcasts the majority of the games on state television. If you ignore the small annual tv license fee, these games are basically free to watch to the live audience. In contrast to this the gameas in SA are available only to subscribing SuperSport customers which further narrows down the potential fanbase. These are some of the obvious reasons, and i'm sure we'll discover many more once Argentina joins the 3 nations. Perhaps if the 4 nations rotate hosting the tournament in a single member country, it might overcome problems raised here, but surely such a rotation system will bring further problems of its own. interesting article with useful data. However, i feel you cant just compare the northern & southern hemispheres as like for like. There are significant differences in geographic setup, travel infrastructure, international purchasing power of member countries, and broadcasting delivery.
I am a South African rugby fan living and working in London for the last 5 years. During this time i’ve actively attended games of the Guinness Premiership, Heineken Cup & Six nations tournaments. I can contrast the northern hemiphere setup to the south as follows:
1) geographically Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England, France, Italy are a line of neighbour countries relatively close proximity to each otherm whilst SA, Aus, NZ are scattered apart. This means that there is no more than a 1-2 hour time difference amongst the 6 nations countries, whilst between SA & NZ that is 10 hours. This geographical seperation creates a dislocation amongst the member country fanbase making it much harder for all 3 x nations of the south to watch live games together. This smaller live audience in turn explains the smaller commercial bid from television networks.
2) Travel infrastructure accross Europe is world class and makes intercity car, bus, rail or flight journeys a doddle. Journey connections are fast and cheap if you earn in Europe. In the UK i paid only £100 for my Saracens season ticket in Guinness Premiership. Or to attend 6 Nations games i would pay GBP60 for the ticket, £20 for a bus ticket to Cardiff, Edinburgh etc, GBP70 for b&b accommodation. Into the continent a tad more for Eurostar rail or flights, but still very affordable. Time difference is negligble and journey times are no more than 2-4 hours. No tourist travel visas are required to travel within EU states. Easy peasy. I’ve never attempted to attend individual games in NZ or Aus, but i’d imagine that must be an almost insurmountable challenge to a SA based Springbok supporter. Global rugby union has filtered down from its origin amongst the selected elite towards a more broad man-in-the-street fanbase. The difference being that whilst man-in-the-street fanbase in Europe can easily support and attend international games, unfortunately the same is not possible for man-in-the-street fan in SA.
3) IMF 2009 GDP per capita data reveals IRE $39.4k, UK $35.1k, FR $33.7k, IT $29.3k. They are all on par in Western Europe with even the Italians being able to afford attending games in London. In the southern hemisphere we find AUS $37.3k, NZ $26.6k & SA $9.9k. Clearly the purchasing power of a SA based fan does not allow penetrating support towards the high cost of living in Aus & NZ. This ecnomic disparity creates yet another dislocation in the member country setup which restricts the mobility of the fanbase further.
4) In England the BBC broadcasts the majority of the games on state television. If you ignore the small annual tv license fee, these games are basically free to watch to the live audience. In contrast to this the gameas in SA are available only to subscribing SuperSport customers which further narrows down the potential fanbase.
These are some of the obvious reasons, and i’m sure we’ll discover many more once Argentina joins the 3 nations. Perhaps if the 4 nations rotate hosting the tournament in a single member country, it might overcome problems raised here, but surely such a rotation system will bring further problems of its own.

(Report abuse)

]]>